Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Leaders of Tamil Nadu, across the political divide, privately but effectively supported the Indian government’s policy of opposing efforts by the US and Norway to rescue Velupillai Prabhakaran so that his Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) lived to fight another day, says Shivshankar Menon, India’s former National Security Adviser (NSA) in his book; “Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy”.

“Political leaders across the political divide in Tamil Nadu knew that the only way Prabhakaran could lead Tamil Eelam would be to physically eliminate the real leaders of the Tamils who were in India, just as he had already done to other Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka,” Menon says in the chapter entitled ‘Force Works.’

“Despite differences in public posture on the issue in Tamil Nadu and Delhi, there was cross party private understanding on the basics of the policy toward Sri Lanka with both the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam Party (AIADMK) party, as a result of considerable hard work by Pranab Mukherjee (the then Foreign Minister) and Narayanan (the then NSA), as I found when I met alone with very senior Tamil Nadu politicians in Chennai, away from the glare of publicity,” Menon recalls.

“Ironically, by murdering Rajiv Gandhi, the LTTE had caused a shift in broader Indian attitudes, which came to be more in line with those of the Sri Lankan government,” he says.

According to Menon, India’s policy options were limited. New Delhi was aware that a victorious Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa would be less dependent on India and therefore less responsive. Rajapaksa not only had a firm grip on the levers of power, including the military, but also the backing of China, Pakistan “and to an extent, the United States.”

As regards the US he makes the interesting observation that “the United States was willing to help him (Rajapaksa) in practice with intelligence and military training, but was constrained to express human rights concerns, without letting them to rise to the level of affecting his conduct of the war against terrorism.”

On the issues before India, Menon says: “If India had stood aside and asked him (Rajapaksa) to desist, in effect, defending the killers of an Indian Prime Minister, we would have effectively written ourselves out of Sri Lanka for the next decade or more, sacrificing our maritime and other interests in Sri Lanka and abdicating a geopolitically strategic neighbor to other powers. We could hardly abandon Sri Lanka to potentially hostile influences. In effect, Sri Lanka is an aircraft carrier parked fourteen miles off the Indian coast.”

Knowing that victory was round the corner, Rajapaksa was in no mood to agree to Western ceasefire proposals or to any idea that the LTTE leadership might be evacuated to safety, even if that was the only certain way to prevent casualties among civilians that the LTTE had driven onto to the peninsula as their hostages and human shields, Menon notes.

But Rajapaksa’s obduracy was matched by Prabkaran’s whose thoughts and plans were increasingly remote from reality. He had either sidelined or killed people who could have advised him better. Prabhakaran’s obduracy resulted in the complete elimination of the LTTE’s military machine and its leadership, including himself and his family.

The way the Sri Lankans fought the war, though criticized for its brutality in the final stages, might have taken a higher toll if delay and stalemate were brought about, Menon feels in his assessment of the war.

“It is arguable that some brutality was inevitable in a war of this kind against a violent terrorist group that had shown no qualms about terrorizing its own people and physically eliminating all its potential adversaries, Tamil or Sinhala.”

“Indeed, one must logically ask the question, would an earlier adoption of the more brutal methods of the last thirty months of the war have brought it to an earlier end and actually saved lives and minimized the war’s deleterious effects?. This is a recurrent problem in state craft. It is also the strongest justification for the use of atomic weapons to end World War II.”

“The strategist Edward Luttwak argues that there are situations in which one should give war a chance. Was Sri Lanka one of them, where peace building efforts and international mediation only prolonged and worsened the agony?,” Menon asks and concludes by saying: “ These are difficult counterfactuals that go against the grain of liberal thinking, but they do seem appropriate to the Sri Lankan case.”

New Delhi: The ministry of external affairs (MEA) on Thursday said that the number of blue-collar Indian emigrants — going to foreign countries to earn their livelihood — from the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar last year (2016) have overtaken those from the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The Indian emigrants were headed to those countries for which emigration clearance is needed which predominantly include countries in west Asia.

Sources said that of the emigrants from India went to these countries to earn their livelihood last year. Uttar Pradesh accounted for 30 per cent and Bihar with 15 per cent compared to Tamil Nadu’s nine per cent and Kerala’s six per cent. Sources said more people from these two northern Indian states were looking for work in the Gulf countries and that more blue-collared workers sought work abroad especially when faced with conditions like drought at home.

The MEA’s “protector general of emigrants” M.C. Luther briefed reporters about the eMigrate Project of the MEA which will enable the ministry to instantly track the whereabouts of the Indian worker, his foreign employer and the recruiting agent once the workers are registered online. This is the only legal route for blue-collared workers to work abroad. The MEA said that unfortunately some blue-collared workers do not adhere to this route and that this makes such workers vulnerable abroad in case they face injustice.

MEA officials said many women-workers from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana go abroad to work as housemaids without being part of this Government regulatory framework and that this renders them vulnerable to exploitation since the Indian Government does not have details of such workers. Shelter-homes of Indian embassies abroad are often full due to this, officials said.

The government has also given workers adhering to the regulatory framework “emigrant id cards” so that they are not rendered helpless for identification purposes even if their passports are taken away by their foreign employers.

A great Minister of External Affairs needs to have the following characteristics:

1) Great conceptualizer: Should be able to conceptualize a different world which furthers Indian interests2) Great Manager: The Ministry and its Ambassadors are spread all over the world and a large establishment in Delhi needs great management skills3) Great Communicator: Should be able to communicate with Indian public as to what and why India is pursuing.4) Have confidence of the PM: This one is obvious as MEA is the external face of the PM.

If you look at the last 10 MEA you will find they did not meet all the four attributes.Some did not meet any of the attributes!!!

Swallowing considerations of national pride after inheriting a bankrupt economy with collapsing exchange reserves that forced India to mortgage its gold in 1991, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao undertook a policy of economic liberalisation. These measures not only radically changed the contours of domestic economic policies, but also led to closer economic integration with our economically vibrant eastern neighbours. Quite logically, this new dimension in our foreign policy was labelled ‘Look East’.

In our western neighbourhood, it was ‘business as usual’. The only significant change was our long overdue establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel.

Smart moves

India is now, a quarter-century later, seizing the opportunities provided by the geopolitical changes that followed the worldwide discoveries of shale oil and gas. Till barely five years ago, the OPEC cartel of oil-producing countries virtually held us hostage to their whims and fancies because of their ability to raise oil prices at will. The discovery of huge resources of shale oil and gas, particularly in North and South America, Australia and even in parts of West Asia, has sent global oil prices crashing. It has also given new leverage to large consumers such as Japan, China and India to get the oil-producing countries in our immediate western neighbourhood to deal, on more mutually beneficial terms, with large neighbouring oil and gas-consuming countries.

We have risen to the occasion to actively engage oil-rich neighbours to our west, where over six million Indians reside and remit over $50 billion annually. We can also be proud that we have dexterously avoided being drawn into sectarian Shia-Sunni, Arab-Persian and other rivalries in the region. Prime Minster Narendra Modi has skilfully established an Indian strategic profile with key players in the region by his visits to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, while seeking to forge an energy and connectivity partnership with Iran, based on shared interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Following the American-led military interventions in Iraq and Libya and the suffering inflicted on the hapless people of Syria by meddling from external powers such as the US and Russia and regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran, millions of Syrians have fled their homes. This is a region where national borders drawn at the end of World War 1 are susceptible to being redrawn.

India has avoided getting drawn into these rivalries, from which will emerge no real winners, while people suffer in countries like Yemen. The Trump Administration’s first military operation in Yemen, undertaken a few days after he assumed office, was a fiasco. Pakistan has undermined relations with traditional friends Saudi Arabia and the UAE by making promises of military assistance and then backing off in Yemen. China has, however, played its cards well by keeping out of sectarian rivalries, while securing investment opportunities.

Binding ties

This year began with India hosting the ruler of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed. Modi had earlier visited the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar. FDI from the UAE, which is India’s tenth biggest foreign investor, has been increasing.

Collectively, the Gulf Arab countries constitute our largest trading partner, accounting for 15 per cent of our global trade. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are individually our third and fourth largest global trading partners. A country with which we need to cultivate closer ties is Iraq, whose oil exports to India are rapidly expanding, like the Iranian exports after the end of UN sanctions. Iraq, with its immense oil production potential, can also become a good investment partner in the energy sector. We need to look at possibilities of linking oil purchases to investment in Iraq. Naval cooperation is also increasing with the Gulf Arab countries, where proximity gives us some advantages over China. Our naval chief Admiral Sunil Lanba has scheduled visits to the UAE and Oman

We cannot, however, be sanguine about these developments, as we are still perceived as a country that takes interminably long to finalise investment decisions. Iran has always been a difficult partner, when it comes to issues of investment. While we now use the western Iranian port of Bandar Abbas for the transit of our goods to Afghanistan, Central Asia and Russia, we appear to be facing delays in finalising the terms of participation in the construction of the Chabahar port. This project, given Pakistan’s disinclination to give us transit facilities and its propensity to squeeze Afghanistan by delaying transit of its goods, is crucial for Afghanistan and India. It needs careful follow-up and monitoring at the ministerial level, to remove bottlenecks.

Good connections

The tie-up with the Arab monarchies will be reinforced during the proposed visit of the Jordanian king to India. Given our wise decision to delink relations with Israel and the Palestinians, Jordan could serve as a good connecting point for visits of Indians to meet leaders of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the monarchy in Jordan has continuously maintained a good personal rapport with Indian leaders. We also have a moral obligation to stand by our principled position of supporting a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian issue which, while guaranteeing Israel’s security, also leads to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

India has come along way from the 1970s when Saudi Arabia threatened to cut off oil supplies if we did not close down the Israeli consulate in Mumbai. Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi rejected the demand, despite our foreign exchange reserves being precariously low. It is heartening that Modi wull undertake a standalone visit to Israel. It is shocking how our defence and other ties with Israel were undermined in the recent past by some senior ministers seeking to keep a distance from their Israeli counterparts because of narrow, partisan, domestic political considerations. Israel has been a reliable friend and has stood by us in times of conflict, including during the Kargil war. There is no need for us to be apologetic about our relations with the Jewish state, especially at a time when many of our Arab partners are finding Israel a useful ally, amidst the sectarian and civilisational rivalries and tensions prevalent in the Islamic world.The writer is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Ties get post-poll push: MP team on way to Pakistan.Sources said that the group of Indian parliamentarians will travel on March 13 and will head to the picturesque town of Murree, about 30 km north-east of Islamabad, where the meeting is going to take place.

Many people blame Indira G for this, but the truth is it was Soviet Union (a so-called ally of India) that threatened to withdraw support if India took back PoK. I don't like Indira G or congress, for that matter, but the blame lies with soviets in this instance.

One should read Major General Sukhwant Singh book on "India's Wars Since Independence". In it there are no plans to take on POK. There are plans to destroy Pak military forces. Once Bangladesh liberation achieved, India decided to stop the war.The US had some mole in PM cabinet feeding stuff about retaking PoK. Mrs. GANDHI might have discussed grand plans knowing they will be passed on. This might have spooked Nixon into sending Task Force 74 in panic.BTW head of TF 74 was Sen john McCain's father!!!

This also reinforced Nixon unstable image willing to go to war with non-communist country like India.

Many people blame Indira G for this, but the truth is it was Soviet Union (a so-called ally of India) that threatened to withdraw support if India took back PoK. I don't like Indira G or congress, for that matter, but the blame lies with soviets in this instance.

India on Friday pushed for including "sustained support for terrorism and radical extremism" as one of the grounds for disqualification of a member state from the Commonwealth.

There are currently eight grounds on which the Commonwealth can take action against a member country, including violation of democratic values and good governance.

At the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meet in London, India stressed that this must be expanded to nine, to include "sustained support for terrorism and radical extremism", an official source said.

India was also successful in keeping action against Bangladesh off the agenda against Pakistan's concerted efforts at the CMAG meeting, where India is being represented by Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar.

"In a way, this was a big victory. There was an attempt to bring Bangladesh on to the agenda (for alleged human rights violations) by our friends on the west (Pakistan), but we managed to keep it from being raised," the source said.

India will also play a key role with the Maldives, which had left the Commonwealth last year after CMAG had put it on notice for undermining democratic institutions.

It was agreed at today's meeting that regional countries should continue to engage with the island nation to try and bring it back into the fold of the Commonwealth.

Pakistan ruled itself out from playing a role until the Maldives government improves its conduct.

However, the Indian side was in agreement with other member countries to play the role of interlocutor and continue the process of dialogue in the region.

The central message from the Indian side was of a more "people-centric" approach within the Commonwealth, with a focus on development and poverty elimination.

"The Commonwealth should not just be an exercise in meetings between governments. It must become more people-centric," Akbar had said earlier.The CMAG is held for ministers from the 52 Commonwealth countries to raise important issues and action points for the benefit of the organisation's membership.

Asked if India had specific issues it wanted to raise, the minister said, "We have no hostility towards any one. We believe that the Commonwealth is a value-based organisation and should really keep on doing what its name suggests."

"It should increase the things that it has in common, rather than reduce, and certainly it should add something to the wealth of this group and find ways of cooperation and creating meaning for the people who live in the Commonwealth," he said.

One thing I do wonder, why are we even dealing with the Britshit looters and their "fantasy football league" style sheet called CommonWealth. Dont we have anything better to do than waste fuel by flying the good Minister (and entourage) in and out of Londonistan?

ramana wrote:A great Minister of External Affairs needs to have the following characteristics:

1) Great conceptualizer: Should be able to conceptualize a different world which furthers Indian interests2) Great Manager: The ministry and its Ambassadors are spread all over the world and a large establishment in Delhi needs great management skills3) Great Communicator: Should be able to communicate with Indian public as to what and why India is pursuing.4) Have confidence of the PM: This one is obvious as MEA is the external face of the PM.

If you look at the last 10 MEA you will find they did not meet all the four attributes.Some did not meet any of the attributes!!!

I think if there is a cabinet reshuffle, Doval should be made the MEA as he is doing the conceptual part of the MEA job.

Prem wrote:https://www.defencenews.org/2017/03/untold-story-indias-decision-release-93000-pakistani-pows-1971-war.htmlThe Untold Story of India’s Decision to Release 93,000 Pakistani POWs After 1971 War

Indira Gandhi’s paramount concern at that moment of time was figuring out how to get Bangladeshi leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman back to his country alive and well.She was prepared to pay any price to save his life. This much the prime minister confided to at least one member of her so called ‘kitchen Cabinet’. That person was Ram Nath Kao. the RAW chief.She was acutely aware of the fact that Mujib was tried by a Pakistani military court and a verdict of death by hanging on charges of treason had been handed down to the Bangladesh leader. Also, as is typical with the Pakistani military, its security services did not fail to demonstrate their morbidity in the crudest possible terms. In his prison cell, a 6.5 ft long grave was dug with a rope with a loop at the end hanging over it – serving as a warning that he could face a cruel death any moment.It would be a nightmare for Gandhi if the Pakistan army carried out the death sentence and left Bangladesh an orphaned state. For India, which supported the Bangladesh liberation struggle with its heart and soul, his execution would be an unmitigated disaster, a dream shattered. So it was in India’s interests to leave no stone unturned to save Mujib’s life, for his sake, for the sake of his family, for the sake of Bangladesh and for its own sake.It was under Mrs Gandhi’s instructions that Muzaffar Hussain – the former chief secretary of the East Pakistan government, the highest ranked civil servant posted in Dhaka as of December 16, 1971 who had subsequently become a POW in India – was lodged as a VIP guest at the official residence of D.P. Dhar. His wife, Laila, who was visiting London when war broke out on December 3, 1971 couldn’t return home and was stuck there. Both husband and wife (in Delhi and London) were communicating with each other through diplomatic channels. I was assigned the job of a VIP courier. Thanks to conducting several back and forths between the two, I soon established a useful rapport with Laila Hussain.The prime minister was very much aware that Laila and Bhutto had been intimate friends for a long time and continued to be so. It was felt at the PMO that she was well placed to play a key role in a one-off diplomatic “summit” at the VIP lounge, the Alcock and Brown Suite, at Heathrow airport.I succeeded in setting up the meeting. The two long-lost friends, Laila and Bhutto, met at the VIP lounge at Heathrow airport. The meeting was marked by great cordiality. It was as convivial as could be. Without a doubt, the back-channel encounter turned out to be a meeting of great historic significance. It was well and truly a thriller, a grand finale to this narrative.Bhutto was quick on the uptake. As he responded to Laila’s emotional appeal for help in getting her husband released from Indian custody, he also cottoned onto the fact that the lady was in fact doing the Indian government’s bidding.With a twinkle in his eye, Bhutto changed the subject. And pulling her aside, he whispered to Laila a very sensitive, top secret message for the Indian prime minister. Sourced from Laila, I quote:“Laila, I know what you want. I can imagine you are [carrying a request] from Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Do please pass a message to her, that after I take charge of office back home, I will shortly thereafter release Mujibur Rahman, allowing him to return home. What I want in return, I will let Mrs. Indira Gandhi know through another channel. You may now go.”After Laila briefed me following the meeting, I lost no time in shooting out a confidential message to the PMO in Delhi reporting Laila Hussain’s input.

Really sorry state of affairs if this was the logic to let go of the 93K POWs without tangible benefits to India.

- Mujib ur Rehman was killed 3 years later by BD Army officers who were Pak trained. So what did this achieve?- If Pak killed Mujib it would give India even more rationale to tear up Pakistan and no power on earth could step in without losing their own morale. - Even a galli dada knows better power politics than these advisers of Mrs. Gandhi.

And the writer basically was a supplicant to Bhutto's paramour Laila after the great victory on 16 December 1971 and writes this shameful episode as clever diplomacy!!!!

For the first time, India is exporting more electricity than it’s importing as Prime Minister Narendra Modi looks to aid smaller neighbors and keep them from a decisive shift toward China.

Exports to Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar between April and February were 213 million units higher than the 5.6 billion units purchased from Bhutan, India’s Power Ministry said in a statement on Wednesday. This stands to rise as India builds more cross-border links, it added.

The move furthers India’s "Act East" policy -- Modi’s upgrade of the 1990s "Look East" plan -- as his administration jostles with China for influence in one of the world’s least economically integrated areas. China has been pouring in investment to fix chronic electricity shortages in Pakistan, India’s rival, and its utilities have been lobbying the new government in Myanmar.

However, progress on electricity exports shows New Delhi is "strengthening regional connectivity, one of India’s major foreign policy objectives," said Joyeeta Bhattacharjee, a fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think-tank. "There is need to strengthen India’s footprint in the region," she added, referring to China’s strategic investments.

What I don't understand is the format of the UNHRC deliberations. Is every country given a turn to speak? What about the right of reply?

Also, Indian speaker, the Attorney General, simply seems to have defended India against accusations by many 'friendly' countries. Why did he not take the fight into those countries? Surely, India can also counter attack apart from defending herself. Give it back more than what you get, India. We seem to do it only with Pakistan as we have done in this UNHRC meet too. We have talked about the situation in Pakistan. With others, we largely keep quiet. Not that the others are blemishless, especially the US which is the most racist country. Actions by it under the Homeland Security Act are not only draconian but also opaque. There have been large-scale conversion of Muslim refugess by Christian evangelicals in Germany, exploiting their hapless conditions. New law needs refugees to undergo a hundred hours of orientation to make them 'integrate' with the German society, a form of cultural chauvinism. Angela Merkel says that full-face veil was not compatible with German culture. She has recently said that she would support a nationwide prohibition on Islamic veils covering the face. Germany is ruled by the Christian Democratic party.

NGOs must abide by India’s laws, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi told the UN’s Human Rights Council at Geneva, as the government faced a tough “peer review” by other countries at the Council. The Council members on Thursday recommended a revision in India’s Foreign Contribution Regulatory Act (FCRA), a repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, decriminalisation of homosexuality and the inclusion of marital rape in Indian laws on sexual violence.

“Supported by a rights-oriented constitutional framework, secular polity, independent judiciary, free and vibrant media, vocal civil society, and a range of national and State-level commissions that monitor compliance with human rights, India continues with its endeavours towards observance of human rights,” the Attorney-General replied, adding that the FCRA is a legitimate law that NGOs wishing to operate in India must follow.

The attack on the FCRA act came from nearly a dozen countries, mostly from Europe. The charge was led by the U.S. and Germany, who called the Act and the government’s actions “arbitrary”.

“India must defend the right to freedom of association, which includes the ability of civil society organisations to access foreign funding, and protect human rights defenders effectively against harassment and intimidation,” the German Ambassador to the UN mission in Geneva said, while the U.S. envoy decried the “complete lack of transparency” in the implementation of the FCRA.

Australia, Ireland, Norway, South Korea, Denmark and the Czech Republic were among other countries calling for a review of the FCRA that has led to the licences of about 14,000 of NGOs being cancelled because of alleged violations.

Attack on minorities

The government also faced criticism on violence against religious minorities from a number of countries. Pakistan’s statement was the sharpest, accusing India of failing to protect minorities “especially Muslims” from “mob violence” and “attacks by extremist groups affiliated to the government.”

Attacks on Africans in India appeared as a new subject of concern at the HRC proceedings, and the government said it accepted responsibility and had sought to prosecute all those responsible for the brutal beating of students at a mall in Noida in March 2017.

On criticism over the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, that gives forces immunity from prosecution, India said the Act applies “only to disturbed areas.”

^^ Why do we even need to engage with this nonsense? What will happen if we simply put out a statement that "we don't recognize the other nations in this grouping as having any right to tell us how to run our country, considering that we are the largest democracy in the world", and simply skip the meeting?

Though if we have to attend, let us be on the offensive and bring others' dirty linen in the public. There is a lot of it, including of UNHCR which had KSA of all countries as a member

There appears to be a new wind blowing through South Block.Positive signs coming from these reports of India muscling in and beating China to the tape esp. preserving our regional ties.This power project for BDesh and OPVs for SL,posted elsewhere, it marks an excellent change in the thinking of the staid mentality of the MEA of old. If only we turn aggressive with Pak diplomatically,it would send s signal to global powers too.Xcpt:

New Delhi (Sputnik) — The project marks a major diplomatic victory for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who took a personal interest in it. Initial bidding rules made eligible only manufacturers from China, Korea, Japan and Europe as BHEL, India's largest manufacturer of power equipment, did not have 500MW operational unit overseas as per the requirement for the bidding..

I think it was not wise to go to ICJ for Zhadev. we have created precedent. ICJ has to be ignored, just as big five and some other self-respective nations do. It only for African tin-pots. We are jumping up and down. What if tomorrow Bakistan want some Indian politician or commander to be tried by ICJ ? in long term it can bite us back. That was very big mistake. JMHO

There's a famous saying about "winning a war without even having going to fight". The goons in the PRC mil HQ must be celebrating another "victory".India failing to turn up and giving them a "walk-over". [b]We seem to have forgotten the Great Helmsman's famous edict."My enemy's enemy is my friend".

The GOI is showing a typical MEA spinelessness when it comes to exercising with friends.[/b]When we can exercise with the US and Japan together,why not OZ watch our jt. exercises with the US and Japan as an "observer" only? Alternatively, exercises can be done with OZ separately,bilaterally,not part of a grand joint exercise with US allies,so that our independence and sovereignty is maintained. If we could hold ASW exercises with Japan close to China why the fear of offending the Chinese with OZ,some thousands of KMs away? We exercise with Spore and other nations,including Russia,so why not with OZ? In any case China and Pak regularly exercise together,India NEVER protests at all! What is "sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander" .The PRC is attempting to encircle India with maritime mil bases,so who the F cares about the sh*tworms in Zhingnanhai? They can simply "eff-off".

One is deeply disappointed with this apparent cowardice by our eunuchs of the MEA.

So what will India get by denying Australia a place in Malabar exercises?Will China support India`s NSG bid? Will it stop supplying arms and money to Pak? Will it heed Indian concerns on CPEC passing through PoK?

What and when exactly has China done anything to ensure good relations with India?! ever !!So this is basically a one way traffic where MEA fellows do not want to be asked if India is building an alliance against China. We should love to be asked this question. Yes, we are building an alliance against you because you are building an alliance against us with your paki friends.

Philip wrote:There's a famous saying about "winning a war without even having going to fight". The goons in the PRC mil HQ must be celebrating another "victory".India failing to turn up and giving them a "walk-over". [b]We seem to have forgotten the Great Helmsman's famous edict."My enemy's enemy is my friend".

The GOI is showing a typical MEA spinelessness when it comes to exercising with friends.[/b]When we can exercise with the US and Japan together,why not OZ watch our jt. exercises with the US and Japan as an "observer" only? Alternatively, exercises can be done with OZ separately,bilaterally,not part of a grand joint exercise with US allies,so that our independence and sovereignty is maintained. If we could hold ASW exercises with Japan close to China why the fear of offending the Chinese with OZ,some thousands of KMs away? We exercise with Spore and other nations,including Russia,so why not with OZ? In any case China and Pak regularly exercise together,India NEVER protests at all! What is "sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander" .The PRC is attempting to encircle India with maritime mil bases,so who the F cares about the sh*tworms in Zhingnanhai? They can simply "eff-off".

One is deeply disappointed with this apparent cowardice by our eunuchs of the MEA.

I see it other way. Chinese are looking for a small (even smallest) pretext to advertise intact H&D. Issues with Australia could be completely different. Indian snub is to show them their place in the regional ranking.

Philip, Till 1965, India was the lynchpin of the anti-submarine strategy of the Commonwealth navies in the Indian Ocean. They used to hold regular exercise with RN, RAN, and RNZN. Then these three isolated India and moved into USN sphere of influence.

The USN Pacific Command realized after FSU collapse they needed IN cooperation and Admiral Kicklighter proposed the Malabar series of exercises in 1992.

Gradually Japan was added.

RAN will be added in due course at IN time of choosing. Not when RAN wants to join in.

BTW you really need to read-up on Viceroy Study Group papers. Olafe Caroe shows India and Australia in same circle of power. India didn't understand that then but that was what drove the Aussie hostility in the initial days.

"BTW you really need to read-up on Viceroy Study Group papers. Olafe Caroe shows India and Australia in same circle of power. India didn't understand that then but that was what drove the Aussie hostility in the initial days."Ramanaji,I am interested. Could you please give me internet addresses to look up stuff on this topic?As far as I remember, around 1965, the UK stopped cooperating with Indian navy. They refused to extend soft credit to purchase ships or submarines that we needed. India was advised to purchase equipment for high altitude warfare and not much else. The same was true for the US and help stopped after China war had ended. At that time USSR offered better terms and equipment and India moved in that direction. NZ and Australia always follow their masters and it is possible that they turned away from India around that time.Gautam

ramana wrote:Really sorry state of affairs if this was the logic to let go of the 93K POWs without tangible benefits to India.- Mujib ur Rehman was killed 3 years later by BD Army officers who were Pak trained. So what did this achieve?- If Pak killed Mujib it would give India even more rationale to tear up Pakistan and no power on earth could step in without losing their own morale. - Even a galli dada knows better power politics than these advisers of Mrs. Gandhi.And the writer basically was a supplicant to Bhutto's paramour Laila after the great victory on 16 December 1971 and writes this shameful episode as clever diplomacy!!!!

Ramanaji,Things were quite different those days. After the war, Mrs. Gandhi was very popular. But the Indian economy, thanks to the war and due to the US and the West, had gone into a recession. Industrial output fell rapidly and many were laid off. Do not expect Tricky Dick not to extract revenge from Mrs. Gandhi for the Bangladesh war. This was on top of the war expenses and the loss of life and limbs. In 1971, India was weak economically. License and permit raj was in full swing and the rate of GDP growth was low (2%?). USSR itself was economically weak with bad harvests and could not help India anymore. Old timers in this forum will remember that 70,000 new engineering graduates were unemployed after getting their degrees in 1971. As a result the engineering colleges reduced their intake, but as the degree took 5 years to complete, the institutions were still churning out engineering graduates every year. I graduated from school at this time and it was difficult to get admission in a good engineering college. Everyday, papers would print how the POW's were fed mutton biryani and chicken curry, and did absolutely nothing. There were also some escapes from the POW camps, and the Pak officers escaped via Nepal. On the way they were given sanctuary in mosques. That is how they learned the way to smuggle terrorists to India via Nepal. The majority in India felt that after the Bangladesh debacle, Pak were finished as enemies. Mujib's killing could not be foretold at that time. So, the general feeling was to get rid of the Pak soldiers ASAP. I am not saying that there should not have been more bargaining. But this was the general feeling among the population at that time.Gautam

Ships full of food and supplies from India will now arrive directly in Qatar's Hamad Port without having to stop anywhere in the Gulf region, offering fresh relief to the small emirate blockaded by its neighbours since June 5.

The new route links Hamad Port in Qatar with Mundra and Nhava Sheva ports in India, according to the Qatar News Agency.

Indian ships will arrive at Hamad port every Friday, with the first shipment expected to bring in 710 containers, said Qatar's Ministry of Transport.

Qatar has been looking to break the blockade imposed on it by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, blocking several of Qatar's usual land and maritime freight routes. Flights have also been affected by its Gulf neighbours refusing to let Qatar carriers use their airspace.

Doha has established direct shipping routes with Oman and has sought alternative suppliers of foodstuffs and goods from nations such as Turkey and Iran.

The Qatari authorities have also moved to reassure citizens and residents that they can weather the blockade without significant damage to the economy and daily life.

The blockade has been criticised by international human rights groups for its potential effect on ordinary citizens.

The three countries and their allies beyond the Gulf region severed ties with Doha without warning last week.

They ostensibly claim Qatar supports "terrorist groups" - a charge Doha vehemently denies - but the move is likely meant to force Qatar to shift its independent foreign policy to be more in line with those of Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and their allies.

Qatar has struck a defiant tone, vowing not to bargain over "sovereign matters".

The crisis has drawn in mediation efforts so far from Kuwait, Turkey, Germany, France and Morocco.

^^ What is the benefit to us if we get directly involved in this? I am not aware of what has happened in this issue, hence the q. Plus, wasn't Qatar hosting the Taliban's office and running Al-Jazeera, which wasn't exactly a friendly news agency?

Of course, if that's a routine shipment that has been going on since long before, then it does not matter. The article makes it sound like that we are coming to their rescue, so wanted to understand what it will get us.

^We would be making a statement that we are the big boy in the area and pesky little nations cannot dictate what our actions will be for or against. We do not allow others to set our agenda. Really good move if true and a move to assert our freedom of action.

Also, cannot sit in a bubble presuming we did be safe by ignoring all not like us. Engage in the region we have to. Qatar a major source for LPG. We have a million Indians and Nepalis in Qatar, not going to let them starve. Hindi is the de facto national language there.

It is engagement that will build equities not sitting out with head in the sand over past griveances.

FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.

In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.

Although Lady Thatcher clashed with President Mitterrand over the future direction of Europe, he immediately came to her aid after Argentine forces invaded the Falklands in April 1982.

"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.

The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.

"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.

"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable."

He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator. "For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."

Caspar Weinberger, the US defence secretary, supported Britain but the State Department was "dominated by Latinos".

"There was incredible pressure from the White House and the State Department to negotiate. It was hugely damaging," Sir John told The Telegraph. "They couldn't understand that to us any negotiated settlement would have seemed like a defeat."

Asked if he found it irritating that the Americans expected Britain's total support in the war against terrorism, Sir John said: "I am against the Americans smashing things up with bombing raids, then letting us be the auxiliary policemen to pick up the pieces."

Sir John says he held the Foreign Office "in deep contempt" for the caution it displayed when Lady Thatcher proposed sending the Task Force to the Falklands.

So what this reveals about US vis a vis even UK is quite revealing. I don't think it was the West Coast American outlook towards Latin America but the stability mantra chanting State Dept experteratti that drove the WH.Secondly the SD is staffed with not only , Latinos, Arabists but Pakistani favoring experts.

And last like about Sir John Nott contempt for UK Foreign Office experts should be reserved for Indian MEA too when dealing with Indian govt. political decisions.

In 1997 on silver jubilee of 1971 war it was proposed by Indian army to do a flag march in all Indian cities to commemorate the Indian victory. In a discussion on this in North Block, The foreign office objected saying the Pakis would be offended.

The Army rep got riled up and asked the Diplomat, "aap kyaa darpok hain?" (Quoting from memory here, this appeared in Sunday magazine many years ago).

Diplomats in general are viewed in skeptically distrusted as they spend too much time in the company of other people and can get influenced by other thought processes. Only in India is the NSA from IFS.....Do not recall this happening in other countries.

In '65 OZ ,was worried about the Paki-Indonesian relationship and covert assistance.The Pakis tried to assassinate our man responsible for securing the intel.Almost succeeded.Tried to kidnap him too.Failed.He got his revenge in '71.

Tha's why we call them diplomutts!You need to be utterly ruthless for your country like Kissinger or Gromyko.The late JN Dixit was such a man.

Yes,the US is an unreliably ally even to its pet poodle Britain! Can you imagine what would've happened in '72 if the US had been on our side and Soviets on Pak's?!Why in the current Chinese gambit in the Asia-Pacific,while exercising with the US etc,in the maritime sphere,we'll have to do the fighting all alone.Imagining that Uncle Sam will send in the USN to come to our aid is unrealistic.US- China ties are too complex.Remember how Clinton and China joined hands to screw India after P-2? Madbright's hyperventilating aboot us shooting ourselves in the foot? Sanctions followed and the LCA was delayed tx to the US refusing to return our FBW software,etc.